U.S. Rep. Brian Mast, who once had an “A” rating from the National Rifle Association, says Congress should — and will — pass new gun restrictions in the aftermath of the most recent mass shootings, in El Paso and Dayton.

The South Florida Republican said universal background checks would become law. And, he said, restrictions on assault weapons could pass also.

Advertisement

“One of the changes is that you see a lot more [Republican] representatives from across the country ... that are stepping out in ways they didn’t previously step out,” Mast said. “I’m glad to see them doing that.”

The issue has been intensely polarized in recent years, with Democrats moving toward favoring more restrictions on guns and Republicans generally opposed to any restrictions — even as public opinion favors some controls.

Mast, who represents northern Palm Beach, Martin and St. Lucie counties, used to live in Parkland about five minutes from the school — and broke with the NRA and a majority of his Republican colleagues by calling for gun restrictions in the aftermath of February 2018 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School massacre.

Nine days after the massacre, in which 17 people were killed and 17 injured, Mast announced his support for a ban on the sales of assault weapons, including the AR-15, used by the Parkland shooter and in many other mass shootings. He said future purchases of “assault or tactical” firearms should be banned.

Among the credentials Mast brings to the debate is his familiarity with the military version of the AR-15, which he said is the kind of weapon that shouldn’t be in civilian hands. In 2010, the then-Army sergeant lost both legs and a finger when a bomb exploded under him in Kandahar, Afghanistan.

The NRA sought to punish Mast for post-Parkland positions, reducing his grate to an “F” when he ran for re-election last year. He was challenged in the Republican primary and then defeated a well-funded Democratic opponent in November with 54% of the vote, about one percentage point better than 2016, when he won his first term.

“I don’t know if it’s hurt or helped,” he said. “It was personal belief that I tried my best to explain very, very thoroughly based upon saying this is my background, this is what I saw, this is how I operated, this is how I came to it.”

This year, Mast helped draft — and was one of only eight House Republicans who voted for — the universal background check legislation that passed the House in February but has been languishing in the Senate.

Federal law already prohibits people from buying or possessing firearms if they’re convicted felons, domestic abusers or are mentally ill. Background checks are currently required for purchases at gun stores, but not between private parties at gun shows and for online purchases. The proposed legislation would close what critics call the gun-show loophole.

Mast, citing positive statements from President Donald Trump since the Aug. 3-4 El Paso and Dayton shootings in which 31 people were killed, said in an interview Thursday that he thinks it could now pass.

“It’s good legislation. It’s smart legislation,” he said. “I hope we see it move.”

While Mast was discussing the prospects for gun control during a break in a Palm Beach County Republican fundraiser, Trump appeared to temper his support for strengthening the background check system, telling people at a rally in New Hampshire background checks at a rally that “We can’t make it harder for good solid law-abiding citizens to protect themselves” and promising to “always uphold” the Second Amendment and people’s right to defend themselves.

Trump has also spoken positively about red-flag laws, formally known as “extreme risk protection orders,” which allow the government to seize firearms of people deemed dangerous to themselves or others.

Mast isn’t in favor of red flag laws, and hasn’t agreed to co-sponsor any of the national legislation that would advance them. “The problem we run into with very single one of them is how do you go out there and not trample somebody’s right to due process,” he said. “It’s great right until he moment that you trample somebody else’s due process. If we can get around that it would be good. If we can’t it’s a hurdle that shouldn’t be trampled.”